BM 630 makes a change

[Architect]

...I say shame on you Sal and I admonish you to rethink your logic and business tactics. I for one am extremely put off by your arguements over the Benchmade 630 and it will be a cold day in hell before I buy a product that supports someone with faulty logic and frankly greedy and questionable business tactics and ethics-in my mind.

Monopolistic, greedy, questionable?

I hope you aren't using a computer that has a Microsoft operating system on it! : :grumpy:

 

[phatch]

I've only been following this tertiarily so if the function argument has been rendered moot, point me in the right direction.

Patents are granted for temporary protection of functional concepts.

Trademarks are prohibited from being functional.

Therefor, no patentable concept should qualify for trademark protection.

That the hole was patented is proof of function.

As a layman, it seems the hole is now public domain as the hole patent has expired.

Time for the courts to decide.

Phil

 

[rzrbk8]

rzrbk8,

Come out from behind the id and tell us your name. Otherwise you look like a troll or shill.

Far from hiding; Thomas E. Horner, Jr. Sacramento, California

Your knowledge of intellectual property law is lacking. I'm not an expert either. However, I do pay for an expert.

Well, I never claimed to know all about intellectual property law.

Go spend thousands of dollars on a patents. Then spend years defining yourself using the patents. Spend thousands of dollars over those years defending the patents. Before the patents run out, take the "look" you have achieved with your patents and trademark it. That is all that Spyderco has done.

You know, all of you failed to acknowledge my points directly. I disagree that the round hole is just a "look."

Syderco could not have trademarked the hole opener when it was first patented because they had not built enough knives to make the hole readily identifiable with Spyderco. The PTO (Patent & Trademark Office) says that a trademark must be identifiable with the company requesting the trademark. Spyderco used the patent to help define themselves, which is the purpose of a patent.

My understanding is that patents protect intellectual property, therefore protecting and hopefully profiting the enterprising inventor. Trademarks are for product identification; Spyderco has their bug. If the debate was over someone using the bug in their design, I would feel just as passionate about the wrongfulness of that as I do this topic. The bottom line is that I disagree that the round hole is trademarked. I feel that it is inherently wrong and is an injustice to knife design as a whole because it is a superior(this is where I feel greed and monopolistic views come in) opening method that cannot be used by other designers and manufacturers. The point being that patents run out and then becomes public domain for others to use and IMPROVE UPON. Someone mentioned that Benchmade might want to trademark the "look" of an axis lock knife. I surely tell you I would just as ticked over that as I am this. In fact, I can't wait for the day when the patent does expire or another manufacturer licenses it because I think it is a great design. I would like to see what other people could do with it though, as much as I love my Benchmade knives. Can you imagine an axis lock knife made by Chris Reeves? I'd buy one in a heartbeat. The same feeling goes for Spyderco, I really like the round opening hole because it is a superior method. Despite my love of my Spyderco knives too, I would love to see what other designers/manufacturers could do with it.

My dream knife would have titanium scales, a modified spearpoint blade of s30v with a round opening hole and an axis locking mechanism. Something with strong, simple lines. Who would/could produce this on an affordable price level and in quantity? Could it be Spyderco or someone else? If things continue as they have, only Spyderco would be able to and frankly, I do not see a knife like that ever coming out of Spyderco.

 

[rzrbk8]

Monopolistic, greedy, questionable?

I hope you aren't using a computer that has a Microsoft operating system on it! : :grumpy:

Yes, I sure am, but that is not what I am discussing here. Microsoft's practices are not kosher either, just on a much grander scale. That does not lessen my feelings on the subject of the round opening hole being a trademark instead of the expired patent it is. The fact is, I feel that it was dishonorable, greedy, monopolistic and unethical for Spyderco to make it a trademark. I will always disagree with it being so and I have a right to express my opinion. That is the bottom line.

 

[stjames]

Can you imagine an axis lock knife made by Chris Reeves? I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Now that's just crazy talk.

Have you considered that you are being selfish for wanting every knife design you like to have an opening hole without the designer and inventor of the concept being compensated?

 

[Daniel Moore]

I think that we should all acknowledge that there PROBABLY won't be a clear-cut answer here.

On the one hand, the opening hole is the only opening mechanism that I'm in love with. I like seeing the opening hole (even ovalled) on Benchmades as well as Spydercos. I would love to see a Sebenza with an opening hole, or any other knife with one for that matter with one, but only because it is my preferred method of opening.

On the other hand, I'd be pissed if I was Sal. If I had created a design that:

1) Solved the problem of studs/ramps getting caught on the pocket.
2) Solved the problem of your skin getting worn off by over-textured studs.
3) Allowed fresh and new opening methods.
4) Allowed accurate opening without failure to engage.
5) Reduced blade weight, even if very minutely.
6) Looked cool as hell.

As well as numerous other things that this design allowed (you could put a zip tie through the hole and around the handle to lock it for storage with kids!), I wouldn't want some guy to walk into the business and start cashing in on my innovation. I'd want all the business that came with my design.

As the consumer, we're naturally going to want to see brand variety hand-in-hand with the opening hole, but we need to respect Sal as a maker. I'd also be pissed if people were going out of their way to avoid any problems (I.E. the oval BM hole, punch-out plastic stud inserts). Maybe the hole doesn't exactly qualify as round, but it's still the general idea.

The moral of the story is this; Although we as knife fans love the opening hole, we can't trample all over a respected maker with rights to it. Regardless of whether or not you think Sal is throwing the flag a little late in the game, he should not get his rights either legally or as a respected man in this community robbed.

If it means that much to you, get a petition and rally Benchmade for a Skirmish with no opening method and we can all go out and buy drill presses.

 

[rzrbk8]

Now that's just crazy talk.

Have you considered that you are being selfish for wanting every knife design you like to have an opening hole without the designer and inventor of the concept being compensated?

Once again, have you guys actually read what I have written? The way I understand it, a patent is the way a designer and inventor is granted rights for compensation. Has Spyderco not been compensated? If I am wrong, then please tell me. I think what it comes down to is that I think it was a patented idea that expired and then was wrongfully trademarked to effectively extend that patent indefinitely. That's how I see it. It seems that those of you that disagree with me support Spyderco and support that for what I see is wrong. That's fine; we have a difference of opinion, yet I have not seen a single rebuttal that actually tackles my points directly. Are forums not the place to discuss similar and different opinions? What I have written may have offended some, that happens with differing opinions. I do offer apologies for calling Sal a stinker He has brought a lot to the industry, I do not disagree with that. I just disagree with some of his personal decisions with his business and I am voicing them, along with my arguments why.